So it is true, you CAN die of a broken heart!

A phrase normally associated with romantics, poetry and the arts, it can now be revealed that one can actually be heavily - and fatally - affected by one's feelings.  The "nocebo" effect or reaction (Latin meaning "I will harm"), is a medical term used to describe harmful, unpleasant and unwanted effects manifesting in a patient upon receiving a dummy drug.  As discussed by Penny Sarchet in her award winning essay for the Wellcome Trust science writing prize, this is the opposite to the "placebo" effect, whereby upon receiving the fake sugar pill, the patient actually feels better.  According to Sarchet's research these were evident during pharmaceutical trials in the eighties, where heart patients were more likely to suffer side effects from blood-thinning medicines if they had been told of any potential side effects the drugs may have.  The nocebo effect is also contagious; psychological-bourne illnesses have been reported worldwide effecting en-masse, "usually affecting close communities and spreading most rapidly to female individuals who have seen someone else suffering from the condition."

Very little is known about how the nocebo effect works.  A study carried out earlier this year by a group led by Professor Irene Tracey (Oxford) found that when volunteers were subjected to noecbo pain, brain activity corresponding to actual, neurological pain registered on an MRI scanner.  One of the neurochemicals responsible for converting this expectation of pain into a real sensation has been identified by Fabrizio Benedetti (Turin) and colleagues as cholecystokinin, a neuropeptide that acts on CCK receptors that are found throughout the human nervous system.  Cholecystokinin acts on the gastrointestinal system is responsible for bringing about the digestion of fat and protein.  However, it is also causes anxiety and nausea and is administered to test subjects in order to cause artifical panic attacks for research and the development of anti-anxiety drugs.

From these findings Parchet highlights the importance of the doctor-patient relationship.  Since the life and wellbeing of the patient is in the hands of the doctor, trust and confidence in his or her methods are vital.  In light of these findings, if the doctor lacks empathy and social skill or fails to project self confidence, then there is the danger that the patient, fearing the worst, will not respond well to any treatment given to them, as actually verified by Irene Tracey's team.

I would like to expand on that a little.  While not being a researcher in this subject, it is clear that anxiety is rife this modern age and doesn't just exist in medical terms.  It is there as soon as we open our eyes in the morning; it is there as we make our way to work and school; it is there during our entire day and it is there waiting for us when we get home.  From these findings I would say we need to examine our relationships with everyone - if we were all kinder, more tactful and showed greater empathy for eachother, physically, mentally and emtionally we might all be better off. 

Less stress, less anxiety and less heartache.

             

Scientists selling their wares in a time of crisis

Escherichia coli under the microscope (Image by Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH)

The big news for the best part of a week has been the E. coli outbreak in Northern Germany, and this morning Professor John Oxford, a leading expert in virology and chairman of the Hygiene Council was interviewed by Eamonn Holmes on his views of the outbreak and what advice he could give to the general public to keep themselves safe.


The Professor answered with a brief low-down of where E.coli comes from ( the animal and human gut) how it got from there to the vegetables (animal and sometimes human waste is used to make manure that is used to fertilise crops) and why, in this case, that the E. coli bacteria from the manure has managed to make it into people's mouths (this new mutant strain of E. coli is more "sticky" causing it to stick to the outside of vegetables so that conventional washing is not enough to remove it.  It also has a way of being able to "wriggle" into the vegetable - where no amount of washing has an effect).  All of these points I agree with - the first two points are common knowledge and the E. coli strain (Enterohemorrhagic E.coli ) uses bacterial fimbriae to attach to surfaces, therefore making it sticky.  The "wriggle" bit I am not too sure about as that would suggest the bacteria has a "tail" that would allow for movement.  However, manure is sprayed on to crops and you would imagine that the fertiliser - and the bacteria - is capable of getting into the little crevices and gaps present in the natural shape of the vegetable.

 The shape of the vegetable, the fruit and their leaves makes it harder to remove potential pathogens (Image by User: Geographer)

However, when it came to giving advice on how to keep ourselves safe from getting infected, the Professor seemed to go off subject and talked about personal hygiene, handwashing and how "manners" is important to make sure that others are kept safe from infection by our own actions.  That is all very well and good and I agree one hundred percent - one should wash hands regularly and yes, one should be considerate towards others, like having your hand over your mouth when sneezing or coughing - but how does that relate when it is the foodstuff that is contaminated? How is handwashing and manners going to make the bacteria unstick from your raw vegetables and stop it from entering your stomach?

  If I scrub my hands hard enough, the bacteria from my salad will disappear! (Image by Serenity)

It was the next words that revealed what was behind his statement - I can't remember the exact words but the word "Dettol" was used.  Bear in mind that John Oxford had some involvement in the Dettol Habit survey and that the Hygiene Council is sponsored by Reckitt Benckiser, a multinational corporation that counts Dettol as one of its power brands.  The Professor continued and ended the interview with advice that people should disinfect more.

 The word infomercial comes to mind

It is already bad enough that in cases of disease outbreaks that we, the general public, have little information to go on except that conveyed by the media - information that is usually sensational and serves to promote fear and panick.  Now there are professionals, experts in the field, that are using this hysteria as an opportunity to endorse products and increase their project funding. 

In times of crisis we all look to those with more knowledge and expertise than us to inform and guide us and we hope that their information is in our best interests.  What we don't need is for these people to take advantage of the situation for their own.  What the good Professor should have said is that since the bacteria cannot be easily removed from the raw vegetables or fruits by washing, that they be cooked thoroughly instead before consumption.  This is just common sense and doesn't require a council and doesn't require a study.

It certainly doesn't require product promotion!

Source: Sky news

Also see: Sell it to me!        

  

Chernobyl: 25 years on

A sarcophagus in the Chernobyl Zone. Image by Piotr Andryszczak

26th of April was the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The Presidents of Russia and Ukraine attended a commemoration ceremony at the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster and were united in calls for new international ruling to ensure the safe running and development of nuclear facilities.

The explosion and fire at the Chernobyl facility based in the former USSR released massive quantities of radioactive material into the surrounding area and into the atmosphere, where it was detected as far away as Norway and Scandinavia. To this day, the areas most effected by the nuclear fallout are still dealing with its aftermath - large areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are still contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Death and poor health attributed to high radiation exposure are still being reported.

Chernobyl radiation map from CIA handbook


President Dmitry Medvedev did not specify what proposals he would bring to the international community. He did, however, stress that the Chernobyl disaster has taught that truth and honesty is paramount to protecting lives: "it is duty of the state to tell the truth to its people. It must be acknowledged that the (Soviet) state did not always behave correctly".

However, lessons from the present-day disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant must also be recognised. Here, the incident was not a man-made accident like Chernobyl but caused by the uncontrollable and unanticipated force of nature. To save lives, one needs to know at an instant the extent and the immediate consequences of the damage to the facility and the impending nuclear fallout in order to take effective action - knowledge that could not have been apprehended fast enough for the officials in Japan to make any formal statements. It is here that honesty and truthfulness, under a massive plume of radioactive dust, do not appear to hold much value.

A word that does appear to be of value is conscience. What we know from both these major incidents is the sheer magnitude of the danger that a nuclear fallout poses to life and health; a danger that cannot be naturally sensed or outrun, that can be so easily caused by man or nature and that is irreversible, destructive and long lasting. One must question whether our demand for energy outweighs the value of human life and the value of our environment - one that in future will be serving as a massive dumping ground for nuclear waste.

Safer, renewable and clean energy technology exists. Now would be the perfect time for world leaders to listen to their conscience, and their people, and make a move away from the tempting toxicity that is nuclear power. What should be the real take-home message from Chernobyl and Fukushima is: haven't we seen enough?

Source: Reuters

Also see:

Channel 4 4od: Nuclear Eternity

Heavy Water: A film for Chernobyl

No thank you, GM cows...

It was reported late yesterday evening that researchers at the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology in China's Agricultural University has successfully introduced human genes into a herd of cows in order for them to produce milk similar to that of human breast milk (see The Telegraph). This latest advancement in GM research is to enhance the presence of key nutrients, missing or found as a low level in cows milk, that are vital to a baby's health and development. At present, three types of genes have been incorporated by microinjection of the modified genetic material into bovine somatic ('body') cells. The nuclei of these cells were then transferred into donor cells, from which transgenic bovine embryos were created and the resulting cows could express lactoferrin, lysozyme and Alpha-lactalbumin in their milk. The observed high yields from these "mammary bioreactors" is seen as a positive step towards the industrial scale production of GM milk.

The process of creating clones by somatic nuclear transfer (taken from de: Quelle: Zeichner: Schorschski / Dr. Jürgen Groth)







However, these findings will also alarm and outrage those who are against the use of GM for food production. There is the obvious safety issue of consuming products that have been unnaturally enhanced and of which the short and long-term effects of consumption are unknown. There is also the concern for the welfare of the animal, since the previously created Dolly the Sheep - although deemed a healthy clone - had an unusually short life-span and suffered health problems.

In the UK, the concept of GM food has had so much bad press that supermarkets go to great lengths to stress that the food they sell are GM free. Furthermore, the use of breast milk for commercial purposes has already caused quite a stir - the recent offering of "Baby Gaga" - breast milk ice cream made from donations of a lactating mother - has invoked mixed feelings ranging from curiosity to disgust (see BBC News).

The question that weighs heavy on my mind is this - why is it that these cows are required when a human mother is quite perfectly able to feed her own child? For argument's sake, there are those mothers who are unable to feed their baby, such as those with a medical condition or are taking/addicted to substances that could risk harm to the baby. However, cannot a human lactating mother donate milk for this purpose? In the case of the ice cream, there were a number of mothers who expressed an interest in offering their milk for financial gain. Cannot healthcare companies/the government pay these ladies to help fellow mothers in need?

In the commercial sense I suspect that when the time comes, the marketing ploy to convince western mothers to use GM milk will be largely based on cosmetics. The perceived unattractiveness of "saggy boobs" as a result of 6 or so months of breastfeeding per baby could be totally avoided by the use of an alternative and equally nutritious source. If that is the case, vanity has reached new heights.

In conclusion, my personal opinion is this - Mothers and women of the UK should unite, burn those bras and chain themselves to the gates of parliament in protest. Not only is breastfeeding a way to feed a child it is also crucial for the bonding between mother and baby; the first step towards building a relationship that is positive, unique and special. Scientific commercialism, vanity and social pressure should not be allowed to undermine its importance. No thank you, GM cows.

Story: The Telegraph

Also see:

PloS One